Syria has become a battleground for geopolitics. Several players in the crisis want to prolong it to grind their axe. Tehran is at a crossroads: it cannot dump Assad nor can it protect him alone
The socio-political changes in West Asia over the past two years, which began in Tunisia and spread to other Arab countries, including Egypt, libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, have drawn attention of the world and affected the entire gulf region. But the most puzzling situation is witnessed in Syria. As violent protests against the Bashar al-Assad regime go on in Syria even after a million deaths on both sides, the world community is divided over a pragmatic solution to the issue. In this wake, the effort for a successful Geneva II, to be held on January 22, 2014, by bringing the international community and regional powers to the negotiating table to resolve the Syrian crisis is remarkable but contentious.
Speculation is rife about the participation of Assad’s long-time ally Iran and Syrian rebels. Iran has been a trusted partner of Assad and therefore it is difficult for Iran to think of Syria without Assad.
Tehran’s participation in Geneva II conference remains uncertain as some of United Nations members, especially the USA, are strongly opposing Iran’s participation at the conference. But at the same time the veto-wielding UN member Russia is in favour of Iran’s participation in Geneva II, which has to take forward a peace plan for Syria worked out in Geneva I conference in June 2012.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei lavrov contended that all States in Syrian neighbourhood should join the conference. But he emphasised that Iran and Saudi Arabia, given their clout in the region, must take part in Geneva II. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon too has a similar view.
Moreover, the UN-Arab league Special envoy for Syria, lakhdar Brahimi, has expressed his desire to rope in Iran to support the UN in preventing humanitarian catastrophe.
But Iran’s condition that there should be no preconditions for participation in the summit has raised some eyebrows. In September 2013, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani emphasised that Tehran was ready to take part in Geneva II conference, but “without any preconditions”.
The riddle is why Iran supports Assad’s regimeIJ There are certain reasons: first, Syria is the only reliable partner of Iran in the West Asian region. Second, the Bashar al-Assad regime is Iran’s only base of influence in the region, and it provides a route for sending military equipment to Hezbollah.
If Assad’s Government were to be ousted, Iran would lose leverage and it would amount to a strategic setback for Iran. Analysts believe that Iran is pushing for participation in the Geneva II conference because: First, the present development in the region has offered Iran an unprecedented opportunity to reinforce its advantageous geopolitical position in the region that will give Tehran more bargaining power at the global platform.
Second, Iran enjoys strong cultural, religious and historical ties with Syria for a long time and it provided Iran an exceptional opportunity to influence its relations with the Assad’s regime. Third, due to the Arab uprising there was also a broader shift in the balance of power in the region. The current uprising in the Arab World has also provided Iran an opportunity to exploit the political unrest and inspire the formation of “Shia Crescent” expanding from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and lebanon. The majority of Syrians are Sunnis and the government is controlled by minority Shia-Alawites.
The Geneva II owes its origin to the Syrian peace process started with a meeting of nine foreign ministers at Geneva in June 2012. The meeting was attended by the five permanent members of the UNSC and Turkey, Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait. The Geneva II conference was proposed by Russia and the US on May 7, 2013. The date of the long-awaited meeting has changed many times due to some practical problems and division within Syria’s Opposition coalition over participating in the summit. Some leaders of the Syrian opposition groups have argued that they will not participate in the Geneva II unless it focusses on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s exit.
Iran has been trying to ensure the survival of the Bashar al-Assad’s regime and has sent high-level officials, including members of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), to Damascus. Tehran also provides financial, political and strategic support to the ruling government against rebels. However, leaders in Iran are also divided. Some want Iran to withdraw its support to Assad because it could lead to confrontation with the West as well as other regional countries. However, there are consensus among different political factions, including hardliners and moderates, that the Syrian crisis should be resolved only through peaceful means. Hardliners, including former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had taken hard steps and strongly opposed the foreign interventions and openly supported the Assad regime. Present and moderate Iranian president Hassan Rouhani has too opposed any military intervention in Syria. However, he supports a non-confrontational stance when dealing with international community.
In a recent telephone conversation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, Rouhani stated that any use of military force against another country without a decree from the UN is a clear violation of international law. He also warned that use of military power in the strategic Arab state could destabilise the whole west Asia region. Chief of IRGC, Mohammad-Ali Jafarihas cautioned that the US will face another Vietnam War if it uses military powers in Syria. Jafari’s comments were also endorsed by Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, who said any military intervention against Syria would blister Israel in flames. The unrest in Syria has reached a tipping point, but that does not guarantee a swift end to the fighting. With or without Assad, there is a bleak possibility of a cease-fire soon as there are several actors who want to prolong the crisis to grind their axe. Outside powers are also trying to push their own agendas while resolving the crisis.
The Iranian government has blamed Western and Arab nations — specifically Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia — of encouraging extremism/terrorism in Syria by arming opposition groups. Syria’s opposition groups mostly Sunni Muslims accuse Tehran of sending military personnel to Syria and of providing arms and ammunition, as well as tactical and communication expertise to Assad’s government forces. Iran has also accepted that a number of IRGC personnel are in the crisis-hit country giving non-military financial and advisory assistance to the Syrian Government. Recently, in September 2012, the commander of the IRGC, Jafari said:
Since the establishment of the IRGC Qods Force, the force has been pursuing the goal of supporting oppressed nations, particularly Muslim (nations). A number of Qods personnel are also present in Syria, but that does not mean that we have a military presence in the country.
Prognosis
It is noteworthy to mention here that accommodating Iran into the Syrian peace process or in Geneva II conference might increase the prospects for a ceasefire. It could also help in normalising the relations between Iran and the US, who had severed diplomatic relations since 1979 due to US Embassy hostage incident in Tehran. For decades, the US has opposed any plan or process in West Asia that takes Iran’s interests into account. The US withdrawal from Iraq has already brought the country under Iran’s influence. Next are post-NATO Afghanistan and Syria with or without Assad.
One thing is certain: Syria has become a battleground for geopolitics. The US-led powers are hell bent on overthrowing the anti-West Assad Government by overt and covert support to the rebels. Russia is trying to regain its lost influence in the Arab world, and Iran is worried about the fate of more than a million Shia Muslims in Syria.
Presently, Iran is at a crossroads: it cannot dump Assad nor can it protect him alone.
(The writer is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi)